[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The GreatViews expressed here are not necessarily the views & opinions of ActivistChat.com. Comments are unmoderated. Abusive remarks may be deleted. ActivistChat.com retains the rights to all content/IP info in in this forum and may re-post content elsewhere.

A great hoax is being perpetrated on the world, the hoax of negotiations as an untried method to “solve” the “Iranian problem.” In fact, we have been negotiating with the mullahs ever since—indeed even before—the 1979 revolution that deposed the shah and brought to power the Islamic Fascist regime of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. In the intervening 28 years, we have participated in countless face-to-face encounters, myriad “demarches” sent through diplomatic channels, and meetings—some on the fringes of international conferences—involving “unofficial” representatives of one government or the other. The lack of any tangible result is obvious, yet the chatterers, led by James Baker and Lee Hamilton, and cheered on by intellectuals, editorialists, and instant experts on Iran, act as if none of this ever happened.

The best discussion of the long, sad history of these failed negotiations is in Ken Pollack’s The Persian Puzzle. Pollack was involved in many of these efforts, and firmly believed that, if only we found just the right formula, a deal could be struck. After all, the president of the Islamic Republic at the time, Mohammed Khatami, was a “reformer,” and appeared to be ready to resume better, and perhaps even normal, relations with the United States. To show our good will, we not only opened a channel of communications to the highest levels of the regime, but we made no less than nine significant concessions to the Iranians. We liberalized our visa policies, expanded cultural exchanges (including permitting our wrestlers to travel to Iran to participate in the world championships), we placed the Iranians’ bogeyman, the Mujahedin Khalq (MEK), on our official list of terrorist organizations, and we shamefully removed the Islamic Republic from the State Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism. We similarly removed Iran from the list of narcotrafficking governments and permitted American companies to sell food and medicine to Iranian purchasers. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright went to international talks on the future of Afghanistan in the hope she would be able to talk directly to Iranian Foreign Minister Kharrazi, and President Clinton himself delivered a speech in which he regretted past American actions with regard to Iran.

All this produced nothing. And, as Pollack notes, Iraqi oil was being smuggled through Iranian waters in open defiance of the embargo on Iraq. But the Clinton folks, convinced that a deal had to be possible, went even further. On March 17, 2000, Secretary Albright openly apologized to Iran.

“The United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran’s popular Prime Minister, Mohammed Mosaddeq...the coup was clearly a setback for Iran’s political development...the United States gave sustained backing to the shah’s regime...(which) brutally repressed political dissent...the United States must bear its fair share of responsibility for the problems that have arisen in U.S.-Iranian relations...aspects of U.S. policy towards Iraq during its conflict with Iran appear now to have been regrettably shortsighted...”

(Pollack says that the Iranians were particularly eager for an apology for the overthrow of Mossadeq, and I have myself from time to time been hectored by Iranians for this presumed malfeasance. Perhaps it shouldn’t have been done, but I cannot for a moment believe that the fanatical clerics in Tehran are enraged by the removal of a progressive liberal. But I digress.)

All those gestures and concessions and giveaways got Clinton a rude awakening. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei delivered one of his patented diatribes: “What do you think the Iranian nation, faced with this situation and these admissions, feels?...what good will this admission (of supporting Saddam in the war with Iran)—that you acted in that way then—do us now?...An admission years after the crime was committed, while they might be committing similar crimes now, will not do the Iranian nation any good.”

(By the way, in her surrender speech, Albright created another myth, which has been elevated to holy writ in the Democratic Party Bible, namely that we favored Iraq in the war. It’s a pretty amazing claim, given the quantity of arms and money and intelligence we showered on Iran in an effort to ransom our hostages. But I digress again.)

Pollack thinks that if Khatami-the-reformer had had more power, or more courage, the grand bargain might have been negotiated. But Khatami was powerless; real power resided with the Supreme Leader (there is a reason for that title), and Khamenei didn’t want any part of a deal with the Great Satan.

Those who still dream of the grand bargain—including those in the G.W. Bush administration who have pursued it avidly, and have gotten kicked in the same place as the Clinton pursuers—must explain to us simple souls why there is anything different today that might make a bargain with the Iranians more likely than it has been for the last 28 years. Certainly the Iranians have shown no desire for reconciliation; quite the contrary, unless you think killing Americans at a rate considerably faster than the tempo of murder in the Clinton years represents some odd form of mating dance. The Supreme Leader is the same fanatic as he was then, in terrible health to be sure, but no friendlier towards satanic negotiators. The only big change in Tehran personnel is the president. Instead of Khatami-the-Reformer we’ve got Ahmadinejad, Hitler’s great admirer. I don’t think that is an improvement.

If they were forced to answer these questions, the advocates of negotiations would resort to the hoax—we haven’t tried negotiations, and it’s worth a try. But the real history of U.S.-Iranian relations suggests very strongly that the only possible winners in such talks will be the mullahs. They will gain more time to organize their war against us, and to build atomic bombs.

Update on Dr. Vali Reza Nasr: Baztab, the VEVAK (Vezaarate Etelaat va Amniete Keshvar) website, carried an article by former Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC/Pasdaran) chief Mohsen Rezai (now Secretary of the IRI's State Expediency Council) on October 26, 2006 praising Nasr's rise to prominence as an expert on Shiite political power. The article notes that both Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have met with Nasr, but that Nasr's advice that the US should accept Iran as a regional power, and start negotiations and come to terms with Iran's leaders has not yet been accepted as yet. Rezai calls Nasr's policy recommendations as "realistic and inclusive" as they accord the Shiites more power, as opposed to Orientalist Bernard Lewis' approach that gave greater control to the Sunni with hopes to democratize Iraq and the region. Rezai's article has disappeared from Baztab in the last few days, but it seems that he feels Vali Nasr is doing a good job. Given Rezai's background and his current position in the regime, we should wonder why Nasr is receiving his approval. Looks like Vali is telling it just like Tehran wants it told.

Whenever pundits run out of ideas on how to deal with the Khomeinist regime, they come out with a cliché: talk to Iran! And, because the contemporary world has a short memory, most people find the suggestion genial. It is as if no one ever talked to the mullahs before!

The truth, however, is that all powers, including the United States and the European Union, have talked to the mullahs whenever the latter wanted it.

The history of the Khomeinist regime since its inception in 1979 shows that whoever tried to engage in negotiations with the outside world, especially the United States, met with an end that few would envy.

The first contact between the US and the mullahs was established in November 1978, soon after Khomeini set up shop in a suburb of Paris. George Cave, the CIA's Iran specialist traveled to Paris and met Khomeini's close aides at the time: Abol-Hassan Banisadr and Ibrahim Yazdi. The message from President Jimmy Carter was one of support for the ayatollah and his Islamic Revolution.

When the Shah's regime collapsed, the early signs were encouraging for Carter. Khomeini's first Cabinet, under Mahdi Bazargan, included five ministers who had immigrated to the US from Iran and had become US citizens.

The Carter administration saw the Khomeinist revolution as the first step towards creating what Zbigniew Bzrezinski, the National Security Advisor, described as "a green Islamic belt" around the Soviet Union. The idea was that, in time, the "belt" would, become a noose that, when pulled, would strangle the Soviet empire.

Eight months after Khomeini had seized power, Bazargan met Brezinski in Algiers and obtained promises of US aid, and a resumption of military supplies, in the context of shared anti-Communist sentiments. Bzrezinski told Carter that Bazargan was "a man with whom we could do business."

A few days later, however, a band of militants raided the US Embassy in Tehran and seized its diplomats hostage. Bazargan and Yazdi, foreign minister at the time, were kicked out, never to return to power.

The first victims of the "talk to the US" curse, they were not the last.

The new champion of "talk to the US" was Sadeq Qutbzadeh, an adventurer who had become an associate of Khomeini in exile. As foreign minister he opened a secret channel with Carter and met the latter's emissary Hamilton Jordan in Paris where they discussed a strategic partnership against the USSR. Soon, however, Qutbzadeh was kicked out, and eventually put to death on Khomeini's orders.

The next champion of "talk to America" was Sadeq Tabatabai, a brother-in-law of Khomeini's son Ahmad. A businessman and dandy, this second Sadeq was the rising star of Khomeinist politics for a few months before he, too, vanished. Struck by the "talk to America" curse, his political fortunes never recovered; and he ended up back in golden exile.

Meanwhile, Banisadr, also affected by the "talk to America" curse , was dismissed by Khomeini as President of the Islamic Republic, and forced to flee to Paris aboard a hijacked jetliner.

The mantle of "talk to America" was passed to Abbas Amir-Entezam, who had been Bazargan's deputy.

As Khomeini's ambassador to Sweden, he opened a secret channel with the Americans and tried to settle bilateral problems through negotiations. He was recalled, charged with treason and thrown into prison where he languished for a quarter of a century, becoming the world's oldest political prisoner.

Another victim of the "talk to America" was Behzad Nabavi who, as deputy prime minister, negotiated the release of American hostages with the US Assistant Secretary of State Warren Christopher in Algiers. Although, Nabavi obtained a good deal for the regime, the fact that he had talked to the Americans was enough to wreck his career. Soon he was out of office, relegated to the margins of the establishment where he has lingered as a loyal opponent of the system ever since.

A similar fate awaited Mir-Hussein Mussavi-Khamenehi, an interior decorator who served as prime minister of the regime in the early 1980s. Through one of his assistants, Abbas Kangarloo, Mussavi opened a secret channel to Washington, and was making progress, when the ayatollah pulled the carpet from under his feet. The post of prime minister was abolished altogether, and Mussavi was kicked out of officialdom never to return.

Some Khomeinist figures managed to avoid the consequences of the "talk to America" curse by blaming others.

Hashemi Rafsanjani, a businessman-cum-mullah who had sent his son Mahdi to talk to the Americans in Washington, was crafty enough to claim that he had just wanted to probe Washington's secret channels with others including Grand Ayatollah Hussein-Ali Montazeri.

When the Reagan administration sent a secret delegation, including Amiram Nir of the Israeli Mossad, to Tehran, headed by Robert MacFarlane, Rafsanjani ordered Qurban-Ali Dorri Najaf-Abadi, a mullah loyal to him, to look after the visitors, thus avoiding direct involvement.

When the secret was revealed by Monatzeri's agents in Lebanon, the mullahs became involved in an open struggle that shook their regime. Montazeri lost and, barred from power, was put under house arrest.

Sometimes the mere suggestion that the regime should talk to the US has been enough to wreck a promising career.

One was Ayatollah Abdallah Nuri, arguably the most honest mullah in the Khomeinist camp, who served as Interior Minister on two occasions.

But when he suggested in a speech that the Islamic Republic should negotiate a deal with the US, he was transformed from a rising star into a falling comet. Thrown into prison and tortured, he was released, then put under house arrest, and excluded from the ruling elite.

Some mullahs have learned the lesson.

One example is Muhamamd Khatami, the mullah who acted as president between 1997 and 2005. Through Giandomenico Pico, a respected Italian diplomat, Khatami opened a channel to President Bill Clinton and persuaded the Americans to ease sanctions on the Islamic Republic and heap praise on Iran's history and culture.

But when he realised that he might be struck by the curse, Khatami backed out of the deal brokered by Pico, and tried to cover himself with anti-American speeches.

Since the seizure of power by Khomeini, Iran has suffered from schizophrenia. There are two Irans. Iran as a nation-state would have no trouble solving it problems through diplomatic channels with all nations, including the US. But Iran as a cause, as a vehicle for Khomeinism, cannot negotiate, let alone, compromise with anybody.

Next time you hear a pundit say: "talk to Iran", you might want to ask: Which Iran?

Amir Taheri was born in Iran and educated in Tehran, London and Paris. Between 1980 and 1984 he was Middle East editor for the London Sunday Times. Taheri has been a contributor to the International Herald Tribune since 1980. He has also written for The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and The Washington Post. Taheri has published nine books some of which have been translated into 20 languages, and In 1988 Publishers'' Weekly in New York chose his study of Islamist terrorism, "Holy Terror", as one of The Best Books of The Year. He has been a columnist Asharq Alawsat since 1987

Iran ’s mullahs have repeatedly indicated their willingness and ability to help restore order in Iraq , on the condition that the United States packs up and leaves the region. The mullahs have also pledged on their Boy Scout’s honor, although they have never been Boy Scouts, that their nuclear program is strictly for peaceful purposes. As a further gesture of goodwill, these self-appointed custodians of Allah’s earth are volunteering to serve as unpaid policemen of the entire Gulf region, protecting vital U.S. interests, just like the Shah did before them. Sounds like a great gift package from the kind-hearted do-gooders of Allah.

Beware of mullahs bearing gifts! The mullahs are diehard adherents of the Islamists’ eleventh commandment “Thou shall not lie or dissimilate (tagyyeh), deceive or cheat (ketman) unless they serve a higher purpose.” And to these devoted faithful, there is no higher purpose in the world than serving Allah’s biding, as they like it and as they interpret it.

Keep in mind that the very name “Islam” means “submission,” unquestioning submission to the will of Allah.

Qur’an 33:36, "It is not fitting for a Muslim man or woman to have any choice in their affairs when a matter has been decided for them by Allah and His Messenger. They have no option."

And in the Quran itself, Allah gives these fellows their mandate: Cleanse the earth from all kuffar (infidels), and help usher in the golden rule of Islam over a corrupt world. This high-purpose strategic goal of Islamization legitimizes any and all tactics.

Qur'an 8:39 "Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah."

Allah, in his kindness, leaves a bit of wiggle room for the unbelievers. Those who refuse to convert or whose life is spared may live under the rule of Islam by paying poll taxes.

Qur’an 9:29, "Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission."

These men of Allah are urged to use every “stratagem of war,” to kill and take the disbelievers as captives. The ones they do not kill, mostly women and children, they take as booties of war and slaves. These devotees of Allah have been and continue to be among the most persistent practitioners of slavery.

Qur’an 9:5, "Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war."

“Every stratagem,” means every stratagem. No heinous act is out of bounds for these savages. They place children, for instance, in the backseat of a car bomb so that it could be waved through checkpoints without inspection. Then, the adults park the car in the midst of a shopping crowd, run out of the car and detonate it with the children inside. Horrific? Shocking? Absolutely barbaric? These are the same people who used thousands of Iranian children as minesweepers during the Iran-Iraq war to clear a path for their more valued armored vehicles.

And as for Iran ’s mullahs’ unyielding drive to acquire the ultimate weapon, it is in obedience to the command of the Quran. And “terrorism,” abhorrent to the civilized world, is explicitly enjoined on the faithful.

Qur'an 8:59 "The infidels should not think that they can get away from us. Prepare against them whatever arms and weaponry you can muster so that you may terrorize them. They are your enemy and Allah's enemy."

And for those who advocate retreating to the safety of “fortress America ,” the following warning should dispel their vain hope. Europe is already partly invaded, and America and other infidel lands are next.

Qur'an 13:41 "Do they not see us advancing from all sides into the land (of the disbelievers), reducing its borders (by giving it to believers in war victories).

It is worse than appeasement to negotiate a “deal” with the Iranian theocrats because any deal struck with these mullahs is only another ruse for them to further their plans. The UN resolutions are nothing more than pieces of paper good for fire, they can pass them all they want, president Ahmadinejad proclaims belligerently. These Islamists go by their 1400-year-old charter of Allah, the Qur’an the same charter that they hold in one hand while slashing the throat of an innocent infidel and yelling joyously “Allah is the greatest” the whole time.

To the misguided “Supreme Guide,” mullah Ali Khamenei of Iran , a few words are in order. The civilized Iranians, descendants of Cyrus the Great, find you, mulla Ali, and your cabal of Islamists guilty of heinous crimes. A partial list of charges is given below. Domestically * You do not represent the Iranian people. You are a usurper of power. You are guilty of transforming a noble nation into a world pariah.

* You are denying and violating a long-suffering people all its human rights.

* You are guilty of beating, imprisoning and torturing a few dozen women who braved participating in a peaceful demonstration pleading for equal family rights, on the recent International Day of Women.

* You systematically beat, imprison, and torture all manners of citizens, from school teachers to students to union workers, for daring to raise their voices against the plight to which you have subjected them.

* You savagely beat and haul to your dungeons of torture and death over a thousand of the tens of thousands of teachers who had recently gathered in front of the parliament requesting nothing more than their back pay and living wages.

* You direct systematic genocidal measures against all non-Shia religious minorities, with Baha’is as prime target.

* You arrest some Christians, even your Quran calls “People of the Book,” for observing Christmas.

* You implement barbaric practices of stoning, hanging and amputations for those who are convicted of crimes in your kangaroo courts without due process. You even imprison those few lawyers who rise in the defense of the innocent.

* You plunder, mismanage and dole out Iran ’s national wealth with the result that the great majority of the people are living in poverty. Iranian women are forced into prostitution to survive or simply sold as sex slaves in Persian Gulf states.

* Your fascist misrule of nearly three decades has driven millions of Iran ’s best children to four corners of the world. Hundreds of thousands of educated Iranians are compelled to continue the exodus, depriving Iran of the sorely-needed talents at home.

* You spend a fortune on the nuclear program that you claim is only aimed for peaceful purposes, while turning Iran into little more than a gas station nation, with its precious oil wealth squandered and its facilities on the verge of collapse through neglect.

* You have created a suffocating social atmosphere that has driven masses of the people to the use of hard drugs as a way of numbing their pain.

Internationally

* You look far and wide to support any and all terrorists. Your delusional theology mandates the creation of horrific conditions in the world so that your Hidden Imam is compelled to appear and establish his rule.

* You spare no efforts at sabotaging any settlement between the Palestinians and Israelis. You arm and train all Palestinian factions such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and any and all that come.

* You direct similar criminal schemes on your eastern flank, in Afghanistan . You consider any democratic system as the enemy of Islamofascism, and rightfully so.

* You work ceaselessly, expand Iran ’s stolen funds, and do all you can in support of your Shia co-fascists Hezbollah in Lebanon .

* Your hands are dripping with the blood of thousands of Iraqis, victims of your bloodthirsty kin mercenaries aiming to kill a budding democracy in Iraq next door.

* You supply your mercenaries with armor-piercing projectiles for killing and maiming the coalition forces in Iraq . Your cowardly killing by proxy, using these roadside planted bombs, has taken the lives of nearly 200 Americans.

* You interpret the highly subdued reactions of the coalition to your savage actions as indications of weakness. So, you find it in yourself to venture into direct confrontation by capturing lightly-armed British sailors and marines in Iraqi waters.

Misguided advocates of negotiation with the mullahs, beware. The mullahs are on an Allah-mandated mission. They are intoxicated with Petrodollars and aim to settle for nothing less than complete domination of the world under the Islamic ummeh. It is precisely for this reason that they consider America and the West as “Ofooli,” setting-dying system, while they believe their Islamism as “Tolooi,” rising-living order. They are in no mood of negotiating for anything less than the total surrender of democracy, the very anathema to Islamism.

And to you, the misguided mullah Ali Khamenei, don’t be fooled by the sycophants who misinform you. Don’t threaten the West by either as-yet-to-come online nuclear weapons or your fantasized sleeper cells. You will be terribly disappointed when Iranian expatriates everywhere will be among the very first to help the authorities find your sleeper cells, if any actually exist, and put them into permanent sleep.

Freedom may suffer retreats periodically and tyranny may advance occasionally. Yet, free people everywhere will meet any challenge and pay any price to safeguard the precious treasure of freedom for themselves and the finest bequeath they can leave for the next generation.

Amil Imani is an Iranian-born American citizen and pro-democracy activist residing in the United States of America . Imani is a columnist, literary translator, novelist and an essayist who has been writing and speaking out for the struggling people of his native land, Iran . He maintains a website at www.amilimani.com

This is followup on how to deal with these shameless Academia who have sold themselves Lock, stock and barrel to the Mullah's Republic in Iran.

Without any regard whatsoever, about the wishes of our brothers and sisters in Iran! The world through their opinions think, this is what Iranians want in Iran!

Below, please note the below site. Go there and read the joint article Op-ed by Ray Takiyeh and Vali Nasr. Two well known Mullah apologists!

We all must prepare a note to New York Times and E-mail to them. The example can be;

Dear Editors of New York Times,

Thank you for posting the below article Op-ed by two of the most important Mullah's regime APOLOGISTS/LOBBYISTS in the United States!

Please! For the sake of all responsible Iranians and your readers, next time you publish below information about Mr. Ray Takiyeh and Vali Nasr also indicate, these two are the Islamic Republic of Iran's Apologists and Lobbyists in United States!

The views they express is NOT THE OPINIONS OF IRANIAN PEOPLE. NOR IRANIANS IN EXILE!

Rather, Islamic Republic of Iran. They are being the mouth-piece for the Mullah's regime ruling Iran.

The Iranian people will want a total regime change. There will be no appeasement with Mullah's. A FREE, SECULAR AND DEMOCRATIC REGIME IS WHAT WE WANT!

In light of above, please revise your write-up about these two lobbyists as we have recommend in red!
"Vali Nasr is a professor at the Naval Postgraduate School and the author of “The Shia Revival: How Conflicts Within Islam Will Shape the Future (Also a Mullah lobbyist in USA.)” Ray Takeyh is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of “Hidden Iran: Paradox and Power in the Islamic Republic. (another well known Mullah's apologist in USA)”

Thank you in advance for your kind consideration and assistance.

Very truly yours,

Your name

cc: to all Media

PLEASE DO YOUR SHARE TO STOP THESE SHAMELESS PEOPLE, DEAD ON THEIR TRACKS!

THEY ARE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THEIR POSITION TO LOBBY ON BEHALF OF MULLAH'S.

Dears.
The two well known Mother of Bride (MADARE AROUS), both Grand Sons of Aakhonds, have prescribed a calming medicine for the Yanks.
Learn from them to act patriotic!!!??
Hashem

=============================

April 5, 2007
Op-Ed Contributors
What We Can Learn From Britain About Iran
By VALI NASR and RAY TAKEYH
THROUGH the capture of and subsequent announcement that it would release 15 British sailors and marines, the Islamic Republic of Iran sent its adversaries a pointed message: just as Iran will meet confrontation with confrontation, it will respond to what it perceives as flexibility with pragmatism. This message is worth heeding as the United States and Iran seem to be moving inexorably toward conflict.

The timing of the Britons’ capture was no accident. The incident followed the passage of a United Nations resolution censuring Iran for its nuclear infractions, the dispatch of American aircraft carriers to the Persian Gulf and the American sanctioning of Iranian banks. Although the Bush administration has been busy proclaiming its increasingly confrontational Iran policy a success, Tehran’s unsubtle conduct in the Persian Gulf suggests otherwise.

Had the British followed the American example, once the sailors and marines were seized, they could have escalated the conflict by pursuing the matter more forcefully at the United Nations or sending additional naval vessels to the area. Instead, the British tempered their rhetoric and insisted that diplomacy was the only means of resolving the conflict. The Iranians received this as pragmatism on London’s part and responded in kind.

The United States, meanwhile, has pursued its policy of coercion for two months now, and one is hard-pressed to find evidence of success. Beyond even the symbolic move of apprehending the British sailors, Iran’s intransigent position on the nuclear issue remains unchanged. To underscore that point, Iran has scaled back cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency and released a new currency note adorned with a nuclear emblem.

Moreover, although Iran has proved willing to talk to Saudi Arabia, especially regarding Lebanon, it has yielded no new ground. In fact, Saudi Arabia’s concerns, relayed to Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, during his visit to Riyadh in January, went unanswered. And if the March 10 meeting of neighbors in Baghdad was supposed to bring a chastened Iran to the table, the opposite happened. Far from being accommodating, Iran boldly asked for a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. But the meeting was noteworthy in making a show of Iran’s regional influence and its importance to the future of Iraq.

The United States faces a stark choice: it will have to either escalate its confrontational policy or adopt a policy of engagement. Far from arresting the Iranian danger, escalation would most likely present the United States with new perils. Given the balance of power in the region, a continued confrontational course with Iran would saddle the United States with a commitment to staying in the Persian Gulf indefinitely and deploying to other conflict areas in an environment of growing radicalism. It would place the United States at the heart of the region’s conflicts, leaving it all the more vulnerable to ideological extremism and terrorism at home and abroad.

Beyond such concerns, a continued policy of confrontation will also complicate America’s Iraq policy. Just as Iraqi Sunnis have cultural and political ties with Sunni Arab states and look to them for support, Iraqi Shiites trust and depend on Iran. An Iraq policy that allies the United States with Sunni Arab governments to eliminate Iranian influence in Iraq will be construed as biased against the Shiites. Such a policy will not win the support of the Shiite-dominated government on which the success of the new American strategy depends.

Since the United States entered Iraq in 2003, Washington has complained about Iran’s meddling, and about its involvement with radical groups and militias. Still, Iran, far more than any of the Sunni Arab regimes, has also supported the Shiite-dominated government and the Iraqi political process that brought it to power. If Iraq were to exclude Iran and seek to diminish its regional influence, Iran would have no further vested interest in the Iraqi political process, and it could play a far more destabilizing role. Therefore, the current policy will not reduce the Iranian threat to Iraq but rather increase it.

An American conflict with Iran would also undermine regional stability, jeopardize the economic gains of the Persian Gulf emirates and inflame Muslim public opinion. Persistent clashes with the United States will radicalize the Iranian theocracy and, more important, the Iranian public.

Iran today sees regional stability in its interest. It abandoned the goal of exporting its revolution to its Persian Gulf neighbors at the end of 1980s and has since acted as a status-quo power. It seeks influence within the existing regional power structure. It improved its relations with its Persian Gulf neighbors throughout the 1990s, and in particular normalized relations with Saudi Arabia. Iran supported the stabilization of Afghanistan in 2001 and that of Iraq during the early phase of the occupation. Conflict will change the direction that Iranian foreign policy has been following, and this will be a change for the worse and for the more confrontational.

A judicious engagement policy will require patience and must begin with a fundamental shift in the style and content of American diplomacy. The breakthrough in American-Chinese relations during the Nixon administration followed such a course. Beijing responded favorably to engagement only after two years of unilateral American gestures. As part of a similar effort toward Iran, the Unites States should try to create a more suitable environment for diplomacy by taking actions that gradually breach the walls of mistrust.

Washington can begin by ending its provocative naval deployments in the Persian Gulf, easing its efforts to get European and Asian banks to divest from Iran and inviting Iranian representatives to all regional and international conferences dealing with the Middle East. Along this path, the language of American diplomacy would also have to alter. The administration cannot propose negotiations while castigating Iran as part of an “axis of evil” or the “central banker of terrorism” and forming a regional alliance to roll back Iranian influence.

Once a more suitable environment has been created, the United States should propose dialogue without conditions with the aim of normalizing relations. For too long, proposed talks with Iran have focused on areas of American concern: nuclear proliferation and Iraq. A more comprehensive platform would involve the totality of disagreements between the two countries and also address Iran’s regional interests.

On the nuclear issue, Iran would have to accede to a rigorous inspection regime to make certain that its nuclear material would not be diverted for military purposes. In the meantime, more cooperative relations between the two parties could benefit stability in Iraq, where both Tehran and Washington support the same Shiite-led government.

After 28 years of sanctions and containment, it is time to accept that pressure has not tempered Iran’s behavior. The announced release of the British captives shows that the Islamic Republic is still willing to mitigate its ideology with pragmatism. A policy of patient engagement will change the context, and that may lead Iran to see relations with America to be in its own interest. Only then will Tehran chart a new course at home and abroad.

Vali Nasr is a professor at the Naval Postgraduate School and the author of “The Shia Revival: How Conflicts Within Islam Will Shape the Future.” Ray Takeyh is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of “Hidden Iran: Paradox and Power in the Islamic Republic.”

Admitting to A Problem and Accepting Mistakes Are The Best Steps Toward Finding A Better Solution, Confessing To The Grand Delusion Is The Beginning Of Redemption.... As Long As President Bush Admin Has Not Accepted Problems and Mistakes Regarding Iraq and Iran Policy and They Have Not Accepted Secular Democracy, Establishing Free Society and Human Rights As The Key Elements Of Any Future Policies Towards All Developing Countries They Will Fail.
The Oil Addiction Is An Excuse For Not Implementing Correct Policy to Please Certain Lobbyists In Washington. Any Republican or Democratic US administration that does not follow the following rules will fail:

Quote:

Today Simple Rules For Evaluating Policy and Strategy

Our future expectations from policy makers and leadership are defined with new set of test cases for foreign policy evaluation criteria to be able to measure success and failure results more easily. Our recommended test cases and criteria are based on Cyrus The Great Spirit, the American founding fathers vision, spirit of freedom, US constitution and defined as follows:

1- Have a secular democracy purpose
2- Have a Human Rights purpose
3- Have a Free Society purpose
4- Have a primary effect to increase freedom at global level.
5- Have the element of War Of Ideas to expand public awareness, education and expansion of truth.
6- Have an element of Freedom of Choice
7- Applying the U.S.A. Supreme Court accepted "Lemon test," to foreign policy decisions, strategy and conduct. According to the "Lemon test," in order to be constitutional, a law or public act must: a) Have a secular purpose. b) Have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion. c) Not result in excessive governmental entanglement with religion.
8- Move towards better unified global fair Justice System.
Any US Admin foreign policies from (Right, Center, Left) that does not pass the above generic test cases, will not be very successful in long term, despite the fact that might look good for special interest group in short term (Iraq, Iran, …..)

Based on the above rules ActivistChat condemns any kind of talks at any levels with Mafia Mullahs who are illegitimate occupiers of Iran in past 28 years and it is in National Interest Of both United States and Iranian people that we use all means for Regime Change In Iran, pushing for respecting Human Rights, establishing Free Society and supporting Secular Democracy demands by great majority of Iranian people.

ActivistChat wrote:

Quote:

Reject USA Surrenders To The Mafia Mullahs and Tyrants Of Iran

Reject Any kind of talk with illegitimate Mafia Mullahs Occupiers of Iran, Terror/Torture Masters and Hostage Takers under any context at any official level and by any United States administrations as long as Iran has not been able to establish Free Society, Secular Democracy and human rights. Any United States Government who does not honors its historical commitments and words will be rejected by both freedom-loving American and Iranian people.

- The Coronation of Empress Farah By Shah Of Iran In 1967 Give Her Majesty Full Legal Power
- Her Majesty Shahbanou Farah Pahlavi Is The Legitimate Leader Of Iran While Iran Is The Hostage Of Mafia Mullahs And During Transition from Mafia Mullahs to Free Society and Secular Democracy…..
It is accepted fact that Her Majesty Shahbanou Farah Pahlavi is legally leader of Iran and today has the highest approval rating from great Majority of Iranian people both inside and outside Iran.
- Her Majesty Shahbanou Farah Pahlavi must be treated as Head Of State and welcomed by all countries who wish to have a Good Relation With Future Free Iran.

I warmly welcome the Imperial Majesties to the White House this evening, and I am sure by the reception that has been indicated here, everybody joins me on this wonderful occasion.

Your visit here is, of course, a tribute to the long legacy of a very close and very cooperative tie between Iran and the United States, and I hope, on the other hand, that you will think upon this as a visit between old friends.

I am the seventh President, Your Imperial Majesty, to have met with you on such an occasion. The facts speak volumes for the continuity and the duration of our bilateral relations and the importance that we attach to the broadening and the deepening of those ties and those interests of peace and progress throughout the world. These are objectives to which the United States remains deeply committed. These objectives Iran shares with us.

Our nations have thus brought together a very unique relationship, working together cooperatively for the past several decades on the basis of a mutual respect, and I am looking forward to continuing this great tradition with yourself, and this country and your country. And it is, as I see it, a living and a growing tradition.

Recently, our common bonds have acquired a new scope as Iran, under your Imperial Majesty's wise leadership, has made extraordinary strides in its economic development and its relationships with other countries of its region and the world.

The progress that you have made serves as a superb model to nations everywhere. Iran has moved from a country once in need of aid to one which last year committed a substantial part of its gross national product to aiding less fortunate nations.

Iran is also playing a very leading role in what we hope will be a very successful effort to establish a more effective economic relationship between the oil producers, the industrialized nations, and the developing nations.

As an indication of Iran's economic importance to the world scene, I am impressed that civilian, non-oil trade between the United States and Iran is expected to total over $20 billion by 1980.

The present period will be seen by historians as a very major milestone in Iran's ancient and very glorious history. The leader whose vision and dynamism has brought Iran to this stage, His Imperial Majesty, is clearly one of the great men of his generation, of his country, and of the world.

Just as Iran's role and potential goes far beyond its own border, so, too, His Imperial Majesty is one of the world's great statesmen. His experience of over 30 years as Iran's leader has been marked by dedication to progress and prosperity at home and significant contributions to the cause of peace and cooperation abroad.

We deeply value our friendship and our ties with Iran, and we will remain strong in that friendship now and for the future. In an interdependent world, we remain deeply grateful for the constructive friendship of Iran, which is playing a very important role in pursuit of a more peaceful, stable, and very prosperous world. And we, for our part, remain constant in our friendship with this great country. We pledge ourselves to insuring that our ties are creatively adjusted to meet the pressing problems and changing realities of the present world.

On a more personal note, let me add that Mrs. Ford and I have felt great pleasure in welcoming Her Imperial Majesty, the Shahbanou of Iran, on this visit. Your Imperial Majesty's dedication to progress within your country is widely known, as is your warmth and your beauty and your graciousness. Your presence is a high honor for us on this occasion.

Ladies and gentlemen, I welcome our distinguished guests, Their Imperial Majesties, and I ask that you join me in proposing a toast to Their Imperial Majesties, the Shahanshah and Shabanou of Iran.

NOTE: The President spoke at 10:17 p.m. in the State Dining Room at the White House. The Shah responded as follows:

Mr. President, Mrs. Ford, distinguished guests:

It is difficult to find words to express our sentiments of gratitude for the warm welcome that you, Mr. President and Mrs. Ford, have reserved for us today.

I wanted to come to this country that I knew before to meet the President of this country for whom we have developed, since he assumed this high office, a sentiment of respect for a man who is not shrinking in front of events. And may I congratulate you for the great leadership and the right decisions that you took for your country and, may I add, for all the peoples who want to live in freedom.

This is precisely what this world needs -- courage, dignity, and love of the other human being. We are proud of being a good and, I believe, a trusted friend of the United States of America, and this will continue because this friendship is based on permanent and durable reasons -- these reasons being that we share the same philosophy of life, the same ideals. And I could not imagine another kind of living which would be worth living.

Your country has been of great help to us during our time of needs. This is something that we do not forget as what Iran can do in this changing world and this world of interdependency. In addition to our continuous friendship with you, we will try to be of any utility and help to other nations which would eventually need that help.

I have got to look to the future of the world -- with all the seriousness of the situation -- with hope, because without it, it will be very difficult to work and to plan.

In that future, I know that we are going to walk together, work together to uphold the ideals in which we believe -- for a world which will be rid of its present difficulties, a world which will not know again the words of famine, illiteracy, sickness, and disease.

Thank you again, Mr. President, for the warm sentiments of friendship that you have shown towards my country and my people. I only can reciprocate the same feelings for yourself and the great people of the United States, and in doing so, I would like to ask this distinguished audience to rise for a toast to the health of the President of the United States of America, of Mrs. Ford, and the people of America.

Visit of the Shah of Iran White House Statement Issued Following the First Meeting Between the President and the Shah. - November 15th, 1977
Toasts of the President and the Shah - November 15th, 1977
Visit of the Shah of Iran White House Statement Issued Following the Second Meeting Between the President and the Shah. - November 16, 1977

Tehran, Iran Remarks of the President and Mohammad Reza Palavi, Shahanshah of Iran at the Welcoming Ceremony. - December 31st, 1977
Tehran, Iran Toasts of the President and the Shah at a State Dinner. - December 31st, 1977

Remarks of Welcome to His Imperial Majesty, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Shahanshah of Iran - July 24th, 1973
Toasts of the President and the Shah of Iran - July 24th, 1973
Toasts of the President and the Shah of Iran at a Dinner at the Iranian Embassy - July 25th, 1973
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Shah and Shahbanou of Iran greet President Nixon and First Lady Patricia Nixon, 05/30/1972

Remarks at the Shahyad Monument in Tehran, Iran. - May 30, 1972
Toasts of the President and Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Shah of Iran, at a State Dinner in Tehran. - May 30, 1972
Toasts of the President and the Shah of Iran at a Luncheon in Tehran Honoring Their Imperial Majesties. - May 31, 1972

Remarks of Welcome at the White House to the Shah of Iran. (August 22, 1967)
Toasts of the President and His Imperial Majesty Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Shah of Iran. (August 22, 1967)
Joint Statement Following Discussions With the Shah of Iran. (August 23, 1967)

Remarks Upon Arrival at Mehrabad Airport, Tehran. - December 14th, 1959
Address to the Members of the Parliament of Iran. - December 14th, 1959
Joint Statement Following Discussions With the Shah of Iran. - December 14th, 1959
Toast by the President at a Luncheon Given in His Honor by Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. - December 14th, 1959
Remarks at the Mehrabad Airport, Tehran, Upon Leaving for Greece. - December 14th, 1959

Photograph of President Truman, Secretary of State Dean Acheson, the Shah of Iran, and other dignitaries at ceremonies welcoming the Shah to Washington, during his visit to the United States., 11/16/1949

Photograph of President Truman and the Shah of Iran shaking hands at Washington National Airport upon the Shah's arrival in the United States, with the President's airplane, "The Independence" (which had brought the Shah to Washington) in the background., 11/16/1949

Courtesy of The Truman Library

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Photograph of President Truman with the Shah of Iran in the Oval Office., ca. 11/18/1949

Courtesy of The Truman Library

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Photograph of President Truman with the Shah of Iran in the Oval Office., ca. 11/18/1949

November 16-20, 1949 - Good will visit. Afterwards visited New York City, Princeton (New Jersey), West Point (New York), Detroit (Michigan), Fort Knox (Kentucky), the Grand Canyon (Arizona), Las Vegas (Nevada), Phoenix (Arizona), San Diego, Los Angeles, and Sun Valley (Idaho). Departed U.S. December 13.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remarks of Welcome to the Shah of Iran at the Washington National Airport. - November 16th, 1949
Toasts of the President and the Shah - November 16th, 1949
Toast of the President at a Dinner Given in His Honor by the Shah of Iran - November 18th, 1949
Joint Statement Following Discussions With the Shah of Iran - December 30th, 1949
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Photograph of President Roosevelt with the Shah of Iran during the Tehran Conference - November 30, 1943

Courtesy of The FDR Library

Images courtesy of US National Archives (NARA) & Presidential Libraries

*******************************************

cyrus wrote:

From: Hashem Hakimi
Retired Imperial Iranian Ambassador

To: The Honorable George W. Bush President Of United States

As one of the remaining senior Iranian Imperial Ambassadors with many years of service in his majesty’s Foreign Office I unequivocally and unconditionally am in favor of regime change in Iran without classic Warfare, I further believe by adopting the correct strategy this could effectively be achieved by United States Government stepping up its support of the Iranian Opposition Groups within Iran and outside Iran, together with a complete blockade of Iranian ports and economic routes combined with total economic sanctions, and targeting the Islamic Republics’ heirarchy. I support and respect the aspiration of Iranian people for a free secular democracy and human rights.

I further declare that:

1. Over the past 28 years the Islamic fascist occupiers of Iran and regime’s apparatus, namely courts, judges and vigilantes have all committed acts of: International terrorism, mass execution of political prisoners, murder, stoning, torture, assault, theft, destruction of property, arson, perjury, falsification of testimonials and material evidence, illegal surveillance, kidnapping, rape, blackmail, fraud, obstruction of justice, creating fear society, conspiracy, cover-ups and every other form of butchery and depredation.

2. I declare Khamenei, Rafsanjani, Amadinejad, Khatami as Islamic Fascists leadership and occupiers of Iran and they are considered as guilty for crimes against Humanity according to the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and established International Law. They have created a society of fear and terror taking 70 million Iranians as their hostages.

3. Human Rights violations by the Islamic "Republic" of Iran have reached an unprecedented colossal level of cruelty and barbarism.

4. I further recognize bombing Iran and its infrastructure is not necessary to free Iran because the Iranian people who are the most pro-American nation in the Middle East and possibly in the world should not be considered as enemies of the United States .

5. I have come to the conclusion that the best way to deal with this unelected and undemocratic regime is to deal with it strongly and with a comprehensive set of measures.

I strongly advocate the following measures:

· Please consider declaring the clerical regime as an illegitimate government

· Please consider completely blockading Iranian ports in the Persian Gulf, the Caspian Sea and other major routes only allowing passage of food and medicine.

· Stop the flow of oil from and to Iran .

· Bring Iranian aviation to a complete halt.

· Indict all the regime’s leader and henchmen in the International Courts and obtain international arrest warrants.

· Further to above obtain orders to ease all their personal assets outside Iran including the regime’s support organizations such as Alavi Foundation in New York City .
Stop, with immediate effect, all international trading with the clerical regime .

· Publicly identify known Isalmic Republic agents, and aggressively pursue the prosecution of their agents abroad as promoters of international terrorism and abusers of human rights. Shut down all illegal unregistered agent organizations representing IRI interests, their lobbyist and apologists.

· Stop all IRI satellite TV and Radio programming to the outside world.

· Freeze IRI assets outside of Iran and impose prohibition on investment, a travel ban, and asset freezes for government leaders and nuclear scientists.

· Worldwide announcement to all nations that any deals and contracts made with IRI (Islamic Republic of Iran) by any entity is null and void and the US Government will back all efforts for future legitimate Iranian Governments to seek compensation from all those helping the current regime transfer assets and monies abroad.

· Close or limit Islamic Republic’s embassies and its activities including travel limits on Iranian diplomats.

· I am requesting from United States as friend of freedom-loving Iranian people to freeze all the deposits of the criminal leaders of IRI, its officials and Mullahs in Dubai ’s financial institutions. These funds belong to ordinary Iranian people and must be frozen for future legitimate government of Iran to use for its finances and and not be penniless. Or for these Islamic thugs to use the billions of dollars of stolen and hidden Iranian assets to create terror and violence in order to overthrew future governments of Iran or to be used for supporting terror in the West or America .

· Please release part of the frozen assets of Iran to the IRI opposition or provide funding to be spent on funds supporting a General Strike in Iran and promotion of democracy.

· Please push to expel IRI representatives from UN since the IRI constitution is contrary to the UDHR (Universal Declarations of Human Rights).

Any regime change in Iran must adhere to the principles of democracy defined by Iranians themselves in 1906 and adhere to the vision sought by the fathers of the Constiutional movement in Iran who took the vision of the American Founding Fathers and other democratic movements as their guiding principles namely:

Secular democracy protecting all not just the rights of the majority;
universal Human Rights; and a free society .

After the liberation of Iran and the much desired overthrew of the unpopular Mullahs, the situation in Iran will be very different to Iraq :

1- There will not be another terrorist sponsoring regime to fund insurgency and terror neither to Iran itself nor in to Iraq .

2- Iranian society is very different to Iraq . The issues of Shia or Sunni will not be a problem the way it is being in Iraq .

3- With a totally different culture, the people of Iran are truly sick and tired of this regime and all they need is a positive signal from the USA . Iranians will do the job with non military invasion of their country .

I hope that the United States Government honours its historical commitements to respect territorial integrity and national sovereignty of Iran after regime change in Iran and reject any possible federalist ideas along NONEXISTENT racial lines in Iran .

Please remember; the key to salvation of Iraq is also in freedom of Iran . The freedom-loving countries of the world must unite and assist Iranian people to end this embarrassment to humanity and civility called Islamic Republic and allow Iran to come back to the arms of the civilized nations.

In helping Iranians, you have stopped the violence in Iraq and have made Iran reach democracy with minimum bloodshed and have preserved the peace and freedom worldwide.

Yours Sincerely,

Hashem Hakimi
Retired Imperial Iranian Ambassador
Oslo, Norway

Reject Rice For Talks With Mullahs, breakthrough with Mullahs and Scorpions are just the illusion by looser for delay tactics....
Talk to Mullahs is considered as surrender to Axis Of Evil by Rice and Bush Admin.

Tehran, Iran, May 15 – Authorities have chopped up the hand of a man in public in the western city of Kermanshah, a state-run daily reported on Tuesday.
“In order to deal decisively against those disrupting national security and order and to carry out the divine law, at exactly 4 pm on Sunday the sentence for Arash’s hand to be amputated in public was carried out in Kermanshah’s Jafaar-Abad Square”, wrote the hard-line daily Qods.
The report said that Arash, whose hand was chopped off, had taken part in 16 robberies.
The sentence had been upheld by Iran’s State Supreme Court, it added. It did not mention, however, which hand was amputated.
Iran’s Islamic penal system regularly practices centuries-old sentences for petty crimes, such as amputation of limbs, eye gouging, stoning to death, and throwing prisoners off a cliff in a sac.

As Part of Russian Studies Rice has not learned anything from Andrei Sakharov father of the Soviet hydrogen bomb and Top Human Rights Activist ??????

Andrei Sakharov (1921-1989) was a Soviet physicist who became, in the words of the Nobel Peace Committee, a spokesman for the conscience of mankind. He was fascinated by fundamental physics and cosmology, but he had to spent two decades designing nuclear weapons. The acknowledged father of the Soviet hydrogen bomb, he contributed perhaps more than anyone else to the military might of the USSR. But it was his top secret experience as a leading nuclear expert that was instrumental in making Sakharov one of the most courageous critics of the Soviet regime, a human rights activist and the first Russian to win the Nobel Peace Prize. He helped bring down one of history’s most powerful dictatorships. This exhibit tells about Sakharov’s extraordinary life.

The connection Sakharov saw between the violation of human rights and international violence has become increasingly recognized. Scholars find that nations with broad and solid political rights (that is, democracies) have rarely if ever warred on one another. But repression at home often leads to conflict abroad. See this essay (S. Weart) and this Democratic Peace site (R.J. Rummel).

Everyone take a good look at people in the above link, the hostage takers of the US Embassy. you are looking at a real TAAZI each one of these Taazis should be tried as terrorist & traitor to their country.

The United States, Iran and the Iraq Negotiation Process
May 16, 2007 23 55 GMT

By George Friedman and Reva Bhalla

At long last, the United States and Iran announced May 13 that they will engage in direct public bilateral talks over Iraq. From Washington, it was the office of Vice President Dick Cheney and the National Security Council that broke the news. From Tehran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad confirmed that the two sides will meet in Baghdad in a few weeks, most likely at the ambassadorial level. That makes these talks as officially sanctioned as they can be.

Already there have been two brief public meetings -- albeit on the sidelines of two international conferences -- between senior officials from the Iranian Foreign Ministry and the U.S. State Department in March in Baghdad and in May in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. The upcoming meeting in Baghdad, however, will be the first official bilateral meeting. After months of intense back-channel discussions, both sides have made a critical decision to bring their private negotiations into the public sphere, which means Tehran and Washington must have reached some consensus on the general framework of the negotiations on how to stabilize Iraq.

Why Now?

The U.S. political situation illustrates why both sides are willing to come to the table right now. Both Iran and the United States are closely eyeing each other's busted flushes, and they understand that time is not on their respective sides.

From the U.S. perspective, it is no secret the Iraq war has soaked up an enormous amount of U.S. military bandwidth. With the 2008 presidential election fast approaching, the Bush administration is left with little time to put a plan in action that would demonstrate some progress toward stabilizing Iraq. It has also become painfully obvious that U.S. military force alone will not succeed in suppressing Sunni insurgents and the Shiite militias enough to allow the government in Baghdad to function -- and for Washington to develop a real exit strategy. But by defiantly sending more troops to Iraq against all odds, Bush is sending a clear signal to Iran that it is not in the Iranians' interest to wait out this administration, and that the United States is prepared to use its forces to block Iranian aspirations to dominate Iraq.

From the Iranian perspective, Tehran knows it is dealing with a weak U.S. president right now, and that the next U.S. president probably will have much greater freedom of action than Bush currently does. The Iranians learned that dealing with former U.S. President Jimmy Carter would have been preferable to dealing with his successor. If you know negotiations are inevitable, it is better to negotiate with the weak outgoing president than try to extract concessions from a strong president during an increasingly complicated situation. The Iranians also know that the intensely fractious nature of Iraq's Shiite bloc -- which Iran depends on to project its power -- makes it all the more difficult for Tehran to consolidate its gains the longer Iraq remains in chaos.

U.S. and Iranian Demands

And so the time has come for both Iran and the United States to show their cards by laying out their demands for public viewing.

U.S. demands for Iraq are fairly straightforward. Our understanding of what Washington wants from Tehran regarding Iraq rests on these key points:

1. The United States wants Iraq to be a unified and independent state. In other words, Washington knows a pro-U.S. regime in Baghdad is impossible at this point, but Washington is not going to permit an Iranian-dominated state either.

2. The United States does not want jihadists operating in Iraq.

3. The United States wants to be able to withdraw from security operations, but not precipitously, thereby allaying Sunni Arab states' concerns.

Essentially, the United States is looking to create an Iraqi government that, while dominated by the Shia, remains neutral to Iran, hostile to jihadists and accommodating to mainstream Sunnis.

Iranian Demands

Iran's answers to these demands were publicly outlined in a paper at the Sharm el-Sheikh summit. The Saudi-owned, U.K.-based daily newspaper Al Hayat established the details of this paper in a May 5 article. The key points made in the presentation include the following:

1. Iran does not want an abrupt withdrawal of coalition forces from Iraq for fear this would lead to reshuffling the cards and redistributing power. Instead, there should be a fixed timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. and British forces from Iraqi cities and relocation at bases and camps inside Iraq, provided the Iraqi forces have reached the point at which they can provide security. The Iranians also stated that they would extend all possible assistance so that foreign forces could exit "honorably" from Iraq.

The U.S. decision to surge more troops into Iraq forced Iran to think twice about placing its bets on a complete U.S. withdrawal. An abrupt withdrawal without a negotiated settlement leaves more problems than Tehran can manage in terms of containing Iraq's Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish factions, and Iran does not want to be left to pick up the pieces in a country that is already on the verge of shattering along sectarian lines.

It is important to note that Iran is not calling for a complete withdrawal from Iraq, and actually acknowledges that U.S. forces will be relocated at bases and camps inside the country. Though this acts as a blocker to Iranian ambitions, the presence of U.S. bases also provides Iran with a stabilizing force placating the Sunnis and Kurds. Moreover, the Iranians are sending assurances to the United States that they are willing to cooperate so the Iraq withdrawal does not look like another Vietnam scenario for the U.S. administration to deal with at home.

2. Iran is "strongly opposed to all attempts to partition Iraq or impose a federal system that allows for regional autonomy." No region should be allowed to monopolize the resources in its territory and deprive other regions of the revenues from these resources.

Iran is essentially saying that Tehran and Washington have a common desire to see a unified Iraq. The U.S. insistence on a unified Iraq takes into account Sunni concerns of being left with the largely oil-barren central region of the country. Iran is signaling that it is not interested in seeing Iraq get split up, even if such a scenario leaves Tehran with the second-best option of securing influence in a Shiite-dominated, oil-rich southern autonomous zone.

3. Iran wants a plan, involving the Kurds and Sunnis, drawn up to root out the transnational jihadist forces allied with al Qaeda in Iraq. Sunni tribes should also assume the responsibility of confronting jihadists, whether they are Iraqi citizens or are from other Arab and Muslim countries.

In this demand, Iran and the United States share a common goal. The jihadists will use every attempt to sow sectarian strife in Iraq to prevent a political resolution from developing. The United States does not want to provide al Qaeda with a fertile base of operations, and Iran does not want its ideological nemesis gaining ground next door and working against Shiite interests.

4. Iran clearly states that the negotiations over Iraq cannot be separated from other regional issues and Tehran's nuclear file.

Stratfor has extensively discussed the nexus between Iran's nuclear agenda and its blueprint for Iraq. Iran is trying to link the nuclear issue to its dealings with the United States on Iraq as a sort of insurance policy. Iran does not want to reach an agreement on Iraq and then leave the nuclear issue to be dealt with down the road, when the United States is in a stronger position to take action against Tehran.

Iran basically is looking for a deal allowing it voluntarily to agree to freeze uranium enrichment in exchange for political concessions over Iraq, but without it having to dismantle its program. That would leave enough room to skirt sanctions and preserve the nuclear program for its long-term interests. Washington is not exactly amenable to this idea, which is what makes this a major sticking point. The United States already has made it clear that it is leaving the nuclear issue out of the Iraq discussions.

5. Iran wants a new regional formula that would make Iraq a region of influence for Tehran.

While it does not appear that Iran explicitly stated this in its presentation, a majority of participants at the conference got the message. Washington cannot afford to allow Iraq to develop into an Iranian satellite, but it is looking for assurances from Iran that a U.S. withdrawal will leave in place a neutral, albeit Shiite-dominated, government in Iraq.

Iranian Offers

The Iranian paper outlined several key concessions it would offer the United States and Iraq's Sunni faction if its demands were met.

1. Iran would help the Iraqi government rein in the armed Shiite militias and incorporate them into the state security apparatus.

2. The de-Baathification law can be revised to allow for the rehiring of former Iraqi army personnel, the bulk of whom are tied to the Sunni nationalist insurgency. However, Iran wants assurances that former Interim Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi and other former Baathists will not be allowed to hold the position of prime minister when the time comes to replace current Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

3. Iran would be willing to see fresh parliamentary elections, the formation of a new Cabinet and the amendment of the Iraqi Constitution to double the Sunni seats in parliament to 40 percent, with the Shia retaining 60 percent. Tehran has said nothing about what would be left for Kurdish political representation, however.

4. Iran has proposed the "fair" distribution of oil revenues in Iraq to satisfy all parties, especially those in "central Iraq," the Sunni-dominated, oil-deprived heart of the country.

Tehran's offers illustrate the Iranians' open acknowledgment that they are not going to be able to have their cake and eat it too. Instead, they are going to have to guarantee Iraqi neutrality by giving the Sunnis a much larger slice, leaving the Kurds to get screwed yet again.

Back in Washington, the Bush administration is looking at the Iranian withdrawal plan skeptically. Right now, the United States wants assurances that a withdrawal plan worked out with the Iranians does not simply leave a longer-term opportunity for Iran to gradually take control of Iraq once the major roadblocks are out of the way. In other words, the United States needs guarantees that, as it draws down its troop presence, the Iranians will not simply walk in. The Iranian proposal to expand Sunni representation is a direct response to these concerns, provided the relevant parties can actually deliver on their promises.

This is still highly questionable, though significant developments are already taking place that reveal the United States, Iran and various Iraqi players are making concrete moves to uphold their sides of the bargain. With Iran's blessing, the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) has announced it will undergo a process of "Iraqization" -- a largely symbolic demonstration that SCIRI will not operate simply as an Iranian proxy. Meanwhile, the Sunni tribes and clans in Anbar province are increasingly broadcasting their commitment and progress in combating transnational jihadists. And finally, numerous reports in the Arab media suggest the United States would be willing to heed the Iranian demand that the Iraqi military not have offensive capabilities allowing it to threaten its Persian neighbor.

The negotiations are moving, and it is becoming more and more apparent that a consensus is emerging between Tehran and Washington over how the Iraq project should turn out. With enough serious arrestors in play for this deal to fall through, it is now up to all players -- whether those players call Washington, Tehran, Riyadh or Baghdad home -- finally to put their money where their mouths are.

No shameful agreement with Mafia Mullahs, and Terror Masters who are illegitimate occupiers of Iran will hold very long.

Quote:

Today Simple Rules For Evaluating Policy and Strategy

Our future expectations from policy makers and leadership are defined with new set of test cases for foreign policy evaluation criteria to be able to measure success and failure results more easily. Our recommended test cases and criteria are based on Cyrus The Great Spirit, the American founding fathers vision, spirit of freedom, US constitution and defined as follows:

1- Have a secular democracy purpose
2- Have a Human Rights purpose
3- Have a Free Society purpose
4- Have a primary effect to increase freedom at global level.
5- Have the element of War Of Ideas to expand public awareness, education and expansion of truth.
6- Have an element of Freedom of Choice
7- Applying the U.S.A. Supreme Court accepted "Lemon test," to foreign policy decisions, strategy and conduct. According to the "Lemon test," in order to be constitutional, a law or public act must: a) Have a secular purpose. b) Have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion. c) Not result in excessive governmental entanglement with religion.
8- Move towards better unified global fair Justice System.
Any US Admin foreign policies from (Right, Center, Left) that does not pass the above generic test cases, will not be very successful in long term, despite the fact that might look good for special interest group in short term (Iraq, Iran, …..)

Based on the above rules ActivistChat condemns any kind of talks at any levels and any agreement with Mafia Mullahs who are illegitimate occupiers of Iran in past 28 years. All possible agreements with unpopular regime will fail.

Iraq lies in ruins today, destroyed by three decades of U.S. imperialism. Ashley Smith reviews a new book on the occupation that explains how this catastrophe happened.

Since the new phase of its war on Iraq began with the March 2003 invasion, the U.S. has caused the death of at least 655,000 Iraqis — though that is only a part of the death toll from two Gulf Wars, and the decade and a half of strict economic sanctions between them.

Despite all the promises, the U.S. has wrecked rather than reconstructed Iraqi society, and from the beginning of its occupation, it stoked a civil war between Sunni and Shia Muslims that has now taken hold and is wreaking horrific damage.

In the 1970s, Iraq had the living standards of Greece. Today, it ranks below Burundi, as one of the poorest countries in the world.

How did the U.S. set Iraq on fire? A new book, The Occupation, by Ali Allawi, who held the posts of trade, defense and finance ministers in successive governments following the U.S. “handover” of power in Iraq, is the most detailed and thorough account yet of this imperial war crime.

The backdrop to the U.S. occupation of Iraq lies in the previous colonial era, when Iraq was ruled by Ottoman Empire in present-day Turkey, and then the British following the first World War.

Allawis’ book describes how these imperial overlords manipulated divisions between Iraq’s three main peoples — Sunnis, Shias and Kurds, using a Sunni ruling class to dominate the country’s Shia majority and Kurdish minority.

In 1958, a secular nationalist movement led by Gen. Abdel Kareem Qasim overthrew the British-installed monarchy, and formed a historic compromise with the Shia and Kurdish elite to form modern Iraq. But it preserved, however muted, the domination of Sunni over Shia and Kurd.

It is only a matter of time before the confrontation between the world and Iran 's ruling Mullahs sets off a catastrophic conflagration. The Islamic Republic of Iran, in defiance of the U.N. Security Council Resolution, continues with its dangerous nuclear program, which poses dire consequences for the Iranian people and the world. We call upon the free governments of the world, as well as all other businesses, organizations and individuals to enlist in a non-violent campaign of ending the reign of terror of the belligerent Iranian clerical regime. Governments should enact the following:

* Renounce the use of force for ending the impasse.

* Declare unequivocally the commitment to respect the territorial integrity of Iran, as well as the rights of the Iranians to decide, through a democratic process, all matters pertaining to their life and country.

* Initiate, without delay or equivocation, a comprehensive program of assistance to all democratic Iranian opposition groups, both within as well as outside of Iran, in their struggle to accomplish the regime change themselves.

* Proclaim wide and far, the cardinal reason for taking these measures against the Mullahs' reign of terror is to prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons, the threat they pose to the region as well as to the world, and the stimulus they provide for other nations to develop their own nuclear arsenal.

* Enforce the U.N. sanctions by inspecting every vessel headed for Iranian ports to make sure they are not ferrying prohibited material. Other than vessels known to be carrying foodstuff and medicine, each ship should be subjected to elaborate inspection.

* Establish an Iran Assistance Fund, from Iran’s frozen assets as well as contributions from peace-loving individuals and organizations, to assist Iranian families during the hardship that the sanctions may create.

* Persuade Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, and other Persian Gulf oil producers to significantly increase their output and drastically cut the price. It is what they must do to help forestall the emergence of a nuclear clerical Iran bent on ruling the region.

* Every user of oil, governments, businesses, and individuals must do their share by severely curtailing their use of oil, to offset any shortages that may arise.

* Obtain court orders to freeze the overseas assets of Iranian leaders, since they are clearly ill-begotten funds that rightfully belong to the nation.

* Shut down, or severely restrict the operation of the Mullahs' businesses in Dubai and other Persian Gulf states.

* Deny the Iranian airlines operation and encourage non-Iranian airlines to cease serving the country. Provide for flights that serve emergency medical and other health needs of the Iranians.

* File legal charges against the leaders of the Islamic Republic's wanton violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; for their crimes against humanity, genocidal actions against religious and political groups; for support of international terrorism; for demolition of religious sites and cemeteries; for rape, torture, and summary execution of prisoners of conscience; for forgery of documents, for acts of blackmail and fraud, and much more.

* Declare and treat the clerical regime as illegitimate.

* Stop or slow down Iran's import of refined petroleum products.

* Shut down the Islamic Republic's web sites and block their television and radio broadcasts.

* Seize the regime's front organizations such as the Alavi Foundation in New York City.

* Identify the agents of the Islamic Republic and prosecute them as promoters of international terrorism.

* Investigate individuals and organizations that lobby or front for the Islamic Republic.

* Take all necessary steps to stop investments in Iran. Persuade banks to refrain from dealing with Iran and the issuance of letters of credit.

* Pressure businesses to stop dealing with Iran.

* Pressure governments to stop doing business with Iran. Warn countries such as China and Russia against circumventing the U.N. resolution and engaging in commercial adventurism.

We, the undersigned, are greatly concerned that the confrontational course of the illegitimate clerical regime of Iran may ignite the flame of war. We urge the leadership as well as people of the world to join in the non-violent campaign of dislodging the mullahs and helping Iranians to establish a secular democracy. The Iran problem is both serious and urgent. It is a world problem. A warning to the world governments and others: You need to act now. Apathy is sleep. If you sleep, we will all weep.
Sincerely,

The No Bombs, No Appeasement: Support the People of Iran's Struggle for a Secular, Peaceful Democracy Petition to Free World Elected Officials was created by Free Iran Secular Activists and written by Amil Imani (activistchat@gmail.com). This petition is hosted here at www.PetitionOnline.com as a public service. There is no endorsement of this petition, express or implied, by Artifice, Inc. or our sponsors. For technical support please use our simple Petition Help form.

On May 28 –- Memorial Day –- U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker sat down with his Iranian counterpart in Baghdad for the first official talks between the two countries in over two and a half decades.

Mr. President, what were you thinking? While you are visiting Arlington National Cemetery honoring America’s fallen warriors, your ambassador is sitting down with the representative of a pariah regime that has American blood on its hands – including the blood of those same warriors we remember on that holiday.

An American diplomat meeting with the likes of Hassan Kazemi Qomi on any day is problematic, but to do so on Memorial Day is an insult to anyone who has ever worn a uniform. Kazemi is a former member of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Qods Force, the Iranian special forces group that is involved in the training and arming of Iraqi Shia militias, particularly the jaysh al-mahdi (Mahdi Army) of radical anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. The Iranian-supplied weapons include the explosively-formed penetrator used in roadside bombs that have killed over 100 U.S. soldiers. Of course, the Iranian ambassador denied any support to the Shia militias – what did you expect him to say?

Why are we meeting with the people responsible for killing our troops? I know why the Iranians want to meet with us. Anytime a pariah nation like Iran can convince the United States – the only remaining superpower – to meet as equals, it bestows legitimacy on that regime and provides a platform for hurling insults veiled as diplomacy. It also sends a chilling message to the moderate, Western-aligned Gulf Arab nations, as well as Jordan and Egypt, that Iran is fast becoming “the” power broker in the Persian Gulf. An American ambassador meeting with an Iranian ambassador seems to underscore that status, something Iran has been seeking for a long time.

During the meeting, Kazemi offered his country’s assistance to train and equip the Iraqi army and police. This is great: the organization responsible for supporting some of the worst violence in Iraq – sectarian fighting between the Sunni and Shia Muslims – is going to come in and solve the problem? To be sure, they just might “solve” the problem, but do we really want that kind of solution? Do we really want Shia-dominated security and military forces imposing Iranian values on the entire country?

Let’s remember who we are talking about – the Iranians. These are the people that created Hezbollah in Lebanon, seized the American embassy in Tehran, took American diplomats hostage, murdered Marine Lt Col Rich Higgins and CIA officer Bill Buckley, continue to support a variety of terrorist organizations – Hamas and Islamic Jihad included –- and are pursuing a nuclear weapons program. Not exactly the best recommendation for potential negotiators.

However, Mr. President, if you absolutely insist on talking to –- and I mean talking “to” not “with” –- the Iranians, start acting like the leader of a superpower instead of treating these thugs as equals. I do agree with your position that any talks should be limited to the security situation in Iraq.

Here are suggested talking points: Stop providing weapons and training to Iraqi militias. You can deny it, but here’s a news flash -- we don’t believe you! You have American blood on your hands and we will no longer tolerate it. Your diplomatically-protected facilities in Iraq are nothing more than operating locations for the Qods Force. That has to stop -– either you stop it or we will.

As New York police and the FBI interview suspects in an alleged plot to attack John F. Kennedy International Airport, one thread the ongoing investigation will explore is why one of the suspects was planning to go to Iran.

A former Guyanese legislator, Abdul Kadir, was arrested in Trinidad on Friday on a plane bound for Caracas, Venezuela. According to Mr. Kadir's wife, Isha Kadir, he was in the island nation to pick up an Iranian visa so he could attend an Islamic conference in Tehran. Two of Mr. Kadir's children are studying in Iran, according to Mrs. Kadir.

Trinidad's counterterrorism police are also investigating whether one of Mr. Kadir's alleged co-conspirators, a 56-year old Shiite imam in Trinidad named Kareem Ibrahim, had ties to Shiite organizations in southern Iraq and Iran through an Islamic discussion group he hosted, according to the Trinidad Express.

In interviews in the Guyanese press, Mrs. Kadir said her husband's Iran connection was likely the reason the FBI was requesting his extradition.

"We are shocked, we are not part of these things," she was quoted by Kaieteur News in Guyana. "To begin with, we are not Al Qaeda ... we are Shia. My husband is a decent, devoted, intelligent Muslim. Both of us have relatives in the United States. It would be nonsensical for him to plot something like this."

An FBI spokesman in New York would not comment on the fact that Mr. Kadir was on his way to Iran when he was arrested, noting only that the investigation into the plot against New York's largest airport was ongoing.

However, a law enforcement official who requested anonymity said the Iran connection was a lead the investigators would be following.

If Iran's hand is found behind the JFK airport plot, it would raise an alarm about the Islamic Republic's recent alliances with America's hemispheric enemies. Since the 2005 ascendance of President Ahmadinejad in Iran, the Iranian regime has strengthened ties with such leaders as President Castro of Cuba, President Chavez of Venezuela, and even President Reagan's one-time foe, President Ortega of Nicaragua.

Mr. Chavez, for example, has signed a series of cooperation agreements with Iran and allowed Iranian television producers to consult on Venezuela's plan to offer a Spanish-language satellite television station. The Venezuelans have also allowed the Lebanese group Hezbollah, which receives funds and guidance from Tehran, to operate openly in their country.

A former FBI officer who until 2003 was in charge of the counterterrorism unit that monitored Iran and Hezbollah, Kenneth Piernick, said yesterday that he would not be surprised if the plotters had a connection to the Iranian regime.

"The fact of the matter is that the Iranians are a bunch of sneaky bastards. They are going to take care of anyone who hurts us. I am not at all surprised that they might have been trying to provide him cover to get out of the region," he said in a telephone interview.

While the New York police commissioner, Raymond Kelly, stressed Saturday that as far as he knew, the plot was not connected to Al Qaeda, the indictment says the plotters sought assistance from the Guyanese Islamist group known as Jaamat al Muslimeen, or the Muslim Group. In 1990, 100 members of Jaamat al Muslimeen attempted a coup in Guyana that resulted in widespread riots. The leader of the group is expected to face trial this month in Guyana's capital, Georgetown.

According to an analyst at the Jamestown Foundation in Washington, D.C., Chris Zambelis, Jaamat al Muslimeen has never focused on international operations and was restricted primarily to organized crime. The organization also preaches a strict Sunni doctrine, wile Mr. Kadir is a Shiite, a branch of Islam that fundamentalist Sunnis regard as heretic.

Mr. Piernick said it was not wise to make too much of the differences between the Muslim branches when it came to Iran's role in supporting anti-American terror.

"Shia Hezbollah has trained Sunnis in military operations without concern for their sect in Islam. What is of concern is that they are able to engage in terrorist acts," he said. "Al Qaeda has found sanctuary in Iran. Is this guy in a payroll? I don't know. Are they willing to help him out, a fellow Muslim against the ‘Great Satan'? Yes, I think they would."

The late Shah followed the Islamic code in Iran and commuted the court imposed death sentence of an Ayatollah.

Actually of a mid-level cleric artificially elevated to that rank for this purpose alone.

Happened to be his biggest mistake. The “ayatollah” was Khomeini, who returned about a decade and a half later, with Jimmy Carter’s help, from exile to trigger the “flesh eating bacteria” syndrome of his personal version of Islam.

Something jihadists of Salafist, Wahabbi and Hojatien Shia persuasions have turned into a reverse crusade against Christianity, Judaism and the West as a whole.

Ayatollah Boroujerdi, son of prominent Ayatollah of the same name under the late Shah was arrested (and 80 followers) last October, tortured mercilessly and now faces execution for charges that suit his accusers not him.

Charges levelled by the inheritors of clerics who insisted it was illegal to execute an Ayatollah. Do as I say not as I do.

Fearing opposition by women as promoted by AntiMullah and aired over a Zorostrian TV (audio only), they arrested 150,000 women in a matter of three days to terrify them into submission before they got going.

The Islamic regime’s ability to handle this huge number of prisoners in such a short time speaks volumes.

This followed an arrest of 10,000 protesting teachers (mostly women) for better pay, not anything politicial.

While the least generous estimate puts dissatisfaction in Iran at about 85% of the population, probably over 90% today, open dissent by a citizenry cowed by unimaginable. immediate, merciless brutality by mostly Arab origin mercenaries - imported to do just this - prevents overt anti-regime activity.

In addition to the fear, deeply imbedded into the populace’s psyche over a full generation, with about 65% of the population under the age of 30 or 35 at most, they do not know for what to fight. Whom to follow when even an Ayatollah is arrested and soon to hang.

They were barely born or under ten years old when the Khomeini disaster happened, have no first hand knowledge of life other than under the clerics - certainly only fearful rumors from fuddy-duddy parents/family of life under the monarchy - and have been spoonfed disinformation from as far back as they can remember.

Nor is there any leader younger than about 65 or 70-years-old from “before” who has a clue how to manage any part of the country or who has the energy or desire to lead an overthrow.

So, for whom should they rise up? Replace what’s there with what? Endure torture for immediate flimsy Western freedoms to listen to music or wear less restricitive clothing?

They doubt the wishy-washy “West” they see as willing to appease the clerics for money (oil, road, rail, nuclear, business projects) will not sell them out. Will not replace one harsh horror with another based on inabiility and corruption instead of repression.

In American efforts to try to have a dog in the hunt, we have turned to accepting, grooming and advocating pro-Mullah infiltrators like Abbas Fakhravar and Akbar Ganji and listening to pro-Mullah advocates like Trita Parsi and a host of others, who ponrificate - inevitably in a misleading fashion.

All young enough for future duty but street level rabble rousers - not future leaders of a country or even any major administrative office. And none with real pro-Western interests and philosophies beyond a temporary comfortable life away from Iran.

Our intelligence capabilities fail repeatedly to penetrate the bullet proof cover stories the clerics have prepared for such persons and we dream of “turning” them.

Preparing them to be our “dogs” in the hunt. Why should they turn?

The jihadists, the Iranian Hojatieh and other terrorist movements are winning the public relations war, the influence war, the threat leverage war, the use of Western liberties to defeat efforts to stop them. And the forced change by contamination of Western cultures in countries where they demand obeissance to Moslem sharia laws, codes and customs.

And meet an almost eager desire to accomodate them.

And the inevitable result (in their eyes) of an Islamic Caliphate ruling the world.

Why do we expect them to abandon the winning side and join our weakness?

They may tag along with us for a “more comfortable life” in the West as they play us for fools but why expect them to turn away from what and whom they see as the winners?

Remember, they respect strength, not “weak” western liberty and justice, when our concepts may often cost them their family’s life and freedom (held loosely hostage) in the short run and not becoming part of the power structure in Iran or Islamic Caliphate in a decade or two.